Royal v. Royal

Oregon Supreme Court

Royal v. Royal

123 P.2d 799, 168 Or. 432, 1942 Ore. LEXIS 30

DecidedMarch 19, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 123 P.2d 799 (Royal v. Royal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Royal v. Royal, 123 P.2d 799, 168 Or. 432, 1942 Ore. LEXIS 30 (Or. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

This is a divorce proceeding wherein both parties seek dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. Each charges the other with cruel and inhuman treatment. The circuit court awarded plaintiff a decree of divorce; adjudicated that she was the owner of certain personal property in which defendant asserted ownership ; and restored to plaintiff her former name, Myrtle H. Rand. There was no award of alimony nor attorney fees. Defendant appeals.

*433 The voluminous record in this case has been considered and it is clear that the decree of the lower court is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. We think it is kindness to the parties involved not to comment upon the evidence. To do so would not give comfort to the defendant nor add to the learning of the legal profession.

The decree is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BELT, J.

This is a divorce proceeding wherein both parties seek dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. Each charges the other with cruel and inhuman treatment. The circuit court awarded plaintiff a decree of divorce; adjudicated that she was the owner of certain personal property in which defendant asserted ownership ; and restored to plaintiff her former name, Myrtle H. Rand. There was no award of alimony nor attorney fees. Defendant appeals.

*433 The voluminous record in this case has been considered and it is clear that the decree of the lower court is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. We think it is kindness to the parties involved not to comment upon the evidence. To do so would not give comfort to the defendant nor add to the learning of the legal profession.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P.2d 799, 168 Or. 432, 1942 Ore. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-v-royal-or-1942.